Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: oldbones Date: Oct 25, 2011 4:30pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: renewal question

Is the following renewal legit?

WIDE OPEN FACES, a photoplay In seven
reels by David L. Loew Productions.
© 24Feb38; L7852. David L. Loew
(PWH); 24Feb66; R380716.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Oct 26, 2011 5:07am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

@bilbarstad: The renewal window is just one year.

"The renewal had to occur during the calendar year following the year of the 27th anniversary of the start date of the first term".

So for this to be valid, it should have been registered before February 24,1966. This looks to be one day late.

If the year in the notice does not correspond to the year in the registration, then the January 1 - December 31 calendar year might apply, but not if the notice says 1938

This post was modified by HektorT on 2011-10-26 12:07:10

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Oct 26, 2011 7:31am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

If I understand correctly, you're saying that renewal isn't based on the year in notice alone, but on the full date on the original registration when the years coincide. I've just been using the recipe Video-Cellar posted here in judging validity of renewals.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Oct 27, 2011 10:42am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

@billbarstad: Yes, the renewal window is during the 27th year after the registration, beginning on the 27th anniversary of the initial registration. So if it is one year then it would end one day before the 28th anniversary. VideoCellar's text also says anniversary.

I'm not sure what the exact dates are in the case of the notice predating the registration

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Oct 27, 2011 10:49am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

Yeah. I was stuck on the whole "in notice' idea.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Oct 27, 2011 12:08pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

Copyrightdata.com doesn't quite agree with you (see attachment), but I've never thought much of that site anyway.

Attachment: Copyright_Renewal_Windows.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Oct 29, 2011 4:35am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

@bilbarstad:

For the film in question, since it is © 24Feb38

The pre-1950 rule applies, to copyrightdata does agree (i like that site a lot!).

I think it was videocellar's post that is confusing as it refers to year in notice. Maybe he is trying to say that in the case that the notice year is active (like when the notice predates actual registration), then the calendar year is valid.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Oct 29, 2011 5:56am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

According to their chart, the start date for the renewal period is 24-Feb-65 and the end date is 24-Feb-66. So the movie wouldn't be PD, since it was renewed on the last day of the renewal window.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Oct 29, 2011 7:17am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

Oh, didn't understand what you were saying. OK, I would agree with that then. I always go with what they say on that site as my most reliable authority.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Oct 29, 2011 8:06am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

What you wrote initially made more sense to me in that the renewal period would be 365 days, or 1 year. The chart also ignores the requirements of the transitional year 1950 as well as the case where the year in notice is different than the year of registration. Oh well, I hope copyrightdata.com is right, at least in what in does cover.

This post was modified by billbarstad on 2011-10-29 15:06:31

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Oct 25, 2011 5:20pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

Movies released before 1950 had to be renewed between the 27th and 28th anniversary of the calendar day of registration based on the year in notice not the year of registration. So if the year in notice is 1938 (I've never seen a full date used in notice), it could be renewed anytime between 1/1/65 and 12/31/66.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Oct 29, 2011 10:30am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

I think V-C makes a distinction between anniversary year and calendar year. For this era film he says:

"Before 1950:
Correct Notice
Timely registration (within 3 months of publication)
Timely renewal (within the 27th-28th anniversary year window*)
copyright could be forfeited if published without correct notice or not timely registered and renewed"

That means the day (anniversary) not the year (calendar), much less two years, right?

One day late to me, but check back tomorrow!

EDIT--It's tomorrow. As has been more recently pointed out, copyrightdata.com says for a motion picture as the one described an anniversary year is actually a year and a day. So this film got under the wire. Check back tomorrow!
END of EDIT.

**To see the distinction I'm referring to, you have to refer to V-C's full post.
http://www.archive.org/post/316307/another-list-of-movies-in-question

This post was modified by elmagno on 2011-10-26 17:05:13

This post was modified by elmagno on 2011-10-29 17:30:31

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Oct 29, 2011 4:38pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

After an answer to a question to Video-Cellar, it's clear that the anniversary year renewal window for Wide Open Faces was Feb. 25, 1965 to Feb. 24, 1966, so the movie's renewal was legit.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: oldbones Date: Oct 29, 2011 5:11pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: renewal question

Thanks to all for their efforts.